“Peacekeeper” missiles are getting a new lease on life: as satellite launchers. Next week, NASA plans to launch the second of these decommissioned intercontinental ballistic missiles, renamed “Minotaur IV,” to deploy a trash-tracking satellite.

It’s nice to know that one relic will help NASA spot others–pieces of junk, like abandoned rocket stages left over from other space missions. As the IV in the new rocket’s name implies, the Peacekeeper isn’t the first retired missile to enter the Air Force’s very special recycling program. The first Minotaurs (pdf) incorporated stages from Minutemen missiles.

Barron Beneski is a representative of Orbital Sciences Corp., which holds the Air Force contract to transform the missiles into launch vehicles. Beneski told Discovery News:

“What is neat is that what was once a military weapons system is now a peaceful use of government assets. It’s the whole idea of turning ’swords into plowshares.’”

Other countries, notably Russia and China, have similar missile makeover programs. Unlike these countries, the United States does not offer the boosters for sale on the open market–only for government use.

“OSC (Orbital Sciences) can’t sell a Minotaur to Brazil,” Wayne Eleazer, a retired Air Force officer, told Discovery News. “That’s still not allowed.”

Related content:
Discoblog: Dang, What Was That? Astronomers Wonder What Just Whizzed by Earth
Discoblog: Killer Military Robots Gaining Independence
80beats: Laser-Bearing Jumbo Jet Shoots Down Its First Missile
80beats: Russia’s Flawed Intercontinental Missile Test Lights Up Norway’s Sky

Image: NASA/JPL

BP can’t clean up its mess. Kevin Costner’s trying. But if you know how to clean up the leaking oil in the Gulf of Mexico, you could be a winner.

The X Prize Foundation says this week that it’s considering the creation of a multimillion-dollar prize for the solution to cleaning the BP oil spill. This is the same organization that put together awards of $10 million or more for private spacecraft and high mileage cars. The foundation’s Frances Beland announced the idea at an oil spill conference in Washington, D.C.

Beland said the foundation wanted to come up with a prize to find a solution to capping the well but found it was unable to obtain enough data to design such a challenge, so it opted to focus on the cleanup. “We’re going to launch a prize for cleanup, and we’re going to kick ass,” he said, to applause. Beland said 35,000 solutions to the Gulf crisis have been proposed to BP, the government and other organizations, including the X Prize Foundation [CNN].

Despite Beland’s high-flying rhetoric, many teams are finding little success in the other X Prize events that are ongoing. The Automotive X Prize, intend to reward cars that can exceed 100 miles per gallon, went through its knockout stage to narrow the competition before next month’s finals. Many of the entries fell by the wayside, unable to meet the milestones of at least 67 MPG or equivalent (MPGe) needed at this stage. (The “equivalent” business is necessary because many of the experimental vehicles use energy sources other than gasoline.)

The Knockout outcome was particularly disappointing for the West Philly team, a high-school group that garnered more and more attention as the contest progressed…. West Philly’s converted Ford Focus fell 3.5 points short of the required efficiency score of 67 MPGe, apparently due in part to a battery-charging snafu [MSNBC].

In addition, some of the car entries stretch the competition definition of being something you could sell to ordinary drivers. As DISCOVER saw when we visited the Shell Eco-Marathon, you can make cars that score way, way above 100 MPG if you sacrifice just about everything else in pursuit of that goal. The Auto X Prize cars are closer to what you might see on the road, but many of the designs are still a little out there.

And given the teams’ struggles to meet even 67 MPG while staying within the competition’s rules, there’s a chance that the winner will be… nobody.

“The prize money’s not won if you’re not successful,” said Eric Cahill, X Prize’s senior director. He added that it’s “entirely possible” that no competitor will achieve the target. “When the rules were first published, we received a lot of heat that this was too easy,” Mr. Cahill said. But as batteries overheated, sensors malfunctioned and cars struggled to cut through densely humid air, the target looks anything but easy [The New York Times].

Thinking back to the mess in the Gulf, we can’t help but reflect on that ever-growing list of 35,000 ideas for the cleanup: Hopefully at least one of them has what it takes.

Related Content:
DISCOVER: Should American Science Be More Like “American Idol”?
80beats: BP to Kevin Costner: We’ll Take 32 of Your Oil Clean-Up Machines
80beats: Lunar X Prize Competitor Hopes to Send a Rover Back to Tranquility Base
Discoblog: Shell Eco-Marathon: Meet the 1,000 MPG Cars of the Future

Image: Aptera

It’s a car… It’s a plane… It’s a car-plane. Last March, we described the maiden flight of Terrafugia’s new flying, driving machine, called the Transition. Now we’re one step closer to a Jetson’s reality: the Transition has just received FAA approval as a “light sport aircraft.”

Approval was not guaranteed, since the little guy is a bit husky, weighing more than the FAA’s “light sport aircraft” limit. As The Register reports, Terrafugia wanted to keep the plane in this classification to keep the vehicle available to more drivers/pilots.

[T]he plane-car was originally designed to fit within a weight limit of 1320 lb, meaning that it could qualify as a “light sport” aircraft. A US light sport pilot’s licence is significantly easier and cheaper to get than a normal private ticket, requiring only 20 hours logged, and red tape is lessened. [The Register]

But giving Transition road-worthy safety gear (like an air bag) meant adding on the pounds. The FAA has said that they’re willing to let a little extra weight slide, allowing the Transition 110-pounds worth of stretching room.

The vehicle can travel at 115 mph in the air and requires 1,700 feet to take off. When it folds up its wings (which it can do electronically), it can snuggle into a garage or a gas station. Though it does seem an exciting commuting option, Terafugia designed the Transition with pilots in mind, giving them the option to land and drive when flying conditions are too rough.

The two-seater Transition can use its front-wheel drive on roads at ordinary highway speeds, with wings folded, at a respectable 30 miles per gallon. Once it has arrived at a suitable take-off spot–an airport, or adequately sized piece of flat private land–it can fold down the wings, engage its rear-facing propellor, and take off. [The Telegraph]

So far, Terrafugia says 70 futuristic folks have pre-ordered the car, paying a refundable $10,000 deposit. The total price tag is $194,000.

Related content:
80beats: A Chitty Chitty Bang Bang For Everyone! New Flying Car Takes to the Sky
80beats: Swiss “Rocketman” Blasts Across the English Channel
DISCOVER: Dude, Where’s My Jetpack? asks why we don’t all have flying cars and ray guns yet
DISCOVER: Chasing the Jetsons wonders if we’ll ever have what they have
Discoblog: Back to the Future: The First Green Flying Car Is Ready for Takeoff

Image: Terrafugia

Ok, I'm now officially overwhelmed by the volume of response to the Washington Post piece and the American Academy paper. Over at DotEarth, for instance--and under the marvelous headline "Scientists From Mars Face Public From Venus"--Andy Revkin has solicited expert responses, and so we hear from Randy Olson, Matt Nisbet, Mike Hulme, John Horgan, Tom Bowman, Sheila Jasanoff, and Robert Brulle. They all have a lot to say. I like this from Nisbet:
The highlighted points of emphasis in the report have been the dominant focus of research in the field of science communication and science studies for the past 15 years and the basis for recent innovative projects such as the World Wide Views on Global Warming initiative. It is therefore deeply encouraging that these same points of emphasis emerged from the meetings convened by the American Academy. It’s a major sign that research in the field has contributed to a cultural shift in how leaders in U.S. science view public engagement. I agree, but I don't think the research alone has done this. I think that the timing was right for hard scientists to look across at social scientists and see what they had to say. Sheila Jasanoff of the Harvard Kennedy ...

The Copernican principle is a guiding foundation of cosmology. In short, it states that we are not in a privileged place in the Universe. A “random” observer will see the same Universe that we do. The cosmological standard model does satisfy this principle in space: at this moment, any other observer in the Universe should see the same Universe as we do (at large scales). Just like us, they see a smooth distribution of galaxies and a smooth CMB sky, with similar small anisotropies. However, we do live at a privileged time: in the history of the Universe, we just happen to be at the time when the dark energy density starts dominating over the dark matter density. This is known as the “coincidence” problem, and has been much discussed and agonized over. Here is a graphical description:

Today is very, very near where the two lines cross (redshift=0 is today; redshift=1,000 is where the CMB is generated; the Big Bang is at redshift=infinity). You can’t even see the crossing on the main plot; you need to go to the inset to see the incredibly rapid change at redshift=1. Last week at the Yukawa Institute workshop John Moffat was advocating calling the standard model “anti-Copernican” because of this fine-tuning. He has been wanting to take matters one step further: if we are willing to break the Copernican principle in time, why not seriously consider breaking it in space instead? More on this later.

The Copernican principle is one of those weird things in science that is a mix of science and aesthetics. It can’t be written down as an equation. And its application is often subject to the eye of the beholder. For example, the plot above looks like a problem because we’ve used redshift on the x-axis to represent time. There are physically motivated reasons to use this, as it relates to the size of the Universe, and is thus a proxy for many relevant physical processes. If instead we label time the way we normally measure it (as in, on your wristwatch, if you happened to have been around since the Big Bang), you get something that looks much more reasonable:
We’re no longer at a special time, and the coincidence problem vanishes. The Universe has been dark-energy dominated for billions of years, and we’re nowhere near the special crossing point. So which plot is right?

I’m thrilled that the evolutionary biologist Brian K. Hall has such great things to say about The Tangled Bank in a review for Choice, the leading review journal for academic librarians (subscriber link):

Those familiar with the books, newspaper and journal columns, and commentaries by Zimmer (e.g., Microcosm, CH, Sep’08, 46-0275; Soul Made Flesh, CH, Dec’04, 42-2220) will be delighted that he has turned his considerable writing skills to creating an accessible and superbly illustrated introduction to biological evolution. The best books on evolution are those that synthesize the processes of evolution (natural selection, mutation, the origin of variation, the role of development) with the patterns of evolution (the fossil record, phylogenetic trees, changes within and between species) and introduce readers to the major players and how they study evolution. Zimmer describes all these processes and patterns of evolution admirably, using his flair with language and substantial knowledge of biology–the latter aided by four scientific advisers, who have advised him well. Zimmer has a gift for finding just the right example to fascinate the reader, encouraging him or her to want to read on and learn more. The book is astoundingly well illustrated; it could serve as a coffee-table book as well as an up-to-date introduction to the changing ways in which evolution has been and is being studied. The inclusion of selected readings allows entry into the primary literature. A book to both browse and read in depth. Summing Up: Highly recommended. All libraries. — B. K. Hall, emeritus, Dalhousie University

I love anaglyphs (3D pictures) and I love astronomy animations and I love Jupiter, so how much do you think I love this anaglyph animation of Jupiter?

[Note: the embedded version here shows it as two separate animations. Go to the YouTube page and you'll see a 3D label at the bottom of the player. Click that, and you can set the animation to be red/green or lots of other options. Currently, I can't seem to embed the video that way, so again I urge you to go to the YouTube page.]

This is from Chris Owen, an amateur astronomer equipped with a 25 cm (10″) Newtonian ’scope (the same kind I had for about 20 years!). The animation shows Jupiter over the course of about 2.5 hours, with one exposure taken every five minutes. You can also watch Europa and Io, two of Jupiter’s big moons, orbiting the planet as well. He created the animation straight, then converted it to 3D. You can see the original on his DeviantArt page — that’s a 3 Mb image, which is why I didn’t embed it, but click it to see because it’s cool.

I like the 3D version; you really get a sense that Jupiter is a ball, and it’s nifty to be able to see the two moons as being farther away than the planet itself, proven positively by seeing Europa physically go behind Jupiter as it orbits. Note too that these observations were made last year, before the Southern Equatorial Belt disappeared.

While these animations are a bit of fun, I suspect they will actually give people more of a sense that these objects aren’t just points of light in the sky, but worlds. I’m a fan of things that give people a deeper connection to the Universe, so I really like these anaglyphs!

Zoologist Mike Dickison throws his hat into the dinosaur comedy ring (yes, dinosaur):

[Hat tip to the brother in Jersey]

Click here to view the embedded video.

A year already! I can hardly believe it.

Here’s a video named aptly: 10 Cool Things Seen in the First Year of LRO.  I think my top two picks are the Apollo landing sites and finding one of the Russian rovers.

The video has very limited sound.

Also You Tube was very slow earlier, hopefully it is faster for you.

Source

When the search engine Bing celebrated Father's Day 2010 with this heartwarming kiss involving another primate species, so many of you sent over the link that I had to feature it in The Science of Kissing Gallery at first opportunity: Submit your original photo or artwork for consideration. The more creative, the better.

Matt Yglesias has posted some charts showing that

1) Childlessness among women is becoming more common

2) The variation of this state by education is disappearing

Here’s the chart which illustrates the second phenomenon:

I think the reason this may be occurring is a dilution of the sample bias of women who have higher education in relation to the general ppoulation. In other words, as more women attain advanced degrees the pool of those women become less atypical vis-a-vis the general population

To gauge the shift in education and peculiarity I only needed a few variables in the General Social Survey. I limited SEX to women, YEAR to 1992-1994 and 2006-2008, DEGREE allowed me to break down educational attainment, and finally GOD was a variable which probed them on a culturally indicative variable.

First you can see women as a whole have become more well educated. This is a well known dynamic. The absolute change in the proportion of women who have advanced degrees is small, only a few percent, but in the GSS the proportion increase is around 50%. This includes masters and doctorates into one category.

The sample sizes for GOD across the periods of interest are small, but look at the enormous increase in the proportion who have no doubts in the existence of God. There was no change in this result in the general population across this time period.

UPDATE: For the second chart I forgot to note that that’s only women with advanced degrees.

Admissions for myocardial infarction and World Cup football: database survey.

“OBJECTIVES: To examine hospital admissions for a range of diagnoses on days surrounding England’s 1998 World Cup football matches. DESIGN: Analysis of hospital admissions obtained from English hospital episode statistics. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Population aged 15-64 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratio of number of admissions for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, deliberate self harm, and road traffic injuries on the day of and five days after England’s World Cup matches, compared with admissions at the same time in previous and following years and in the month preceding the tournament. RESULTS: Risk of admission for acute myocardial infarction [heart attack] increased by 25% on 30 June 1998 (the day England lost to Argentina in a penalty shoot-out) and the following two days. No excess admissions occurred for other diagnoses or on the days of the other England matches. The effect was the same when only the two days after the match were treated as the exposed condition. Individual analyses of the day of and the two days after the Argentina match showed 55 extra admissions for myocardial infarctions compared with the number expected. CONCLUSION: The increase in admissions suggests that myocardial infarction can be triggered by emotional upset, such as watching your football team lose an important match.”

Another study found similar results in Swiss fans:

Increase of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the male population of the French speaking provinces of Switzerland during the 1998 FIFA World Cup

And it’s not just World Cup games–watching local professional football is also associated with increased heart attack rates:

A matter of life and death: population mortality and football results.

“OBJECTIVES: To determine whether football results are associated with mortality from circulatory disease. DESIGN: Retrospective study, comparing mortality on days of football matches between 18 August 1994 and 28 December 1999 with the results of the football matches. SETTING: Newcastle and North Tyneside, Sunderland, Tees, and Leeds Health Authority areas of England…. …MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality attributable to acute myocardial infarction and stroke. RESULTS: On days when the local professional football team lost at home, mortality attributable to acute myocardial infarction and stroke increased significantly in men (relative risk 1.28, 95% confidence intervals 1.11 to 1.47). No increase was observed in women. CONCLUSIONS: Results achieved by the local professional football team are associated systematically with circulatory disease death rates over a five year period in men, but not women.”

Image: flickr/Giorgio Montersino

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Impact of Yankee Stadium Bat Day on blunt trauma in northern New York City.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Study proves hot baseball players more likely to pummel you with their balls.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Proof that NCBI ROFL reduces aggression!

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!

When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, any fossil fuel looks bad compared to wind, solar, and even nuclear power sources. But how do fossil fuels stack up against one another? Natural gas is a lot better emissions-wise compared to coal, according to a new report, and may serve as a temporary coal stand-in over the coming decades, until the cost of alternative energy sources comes down.

The MIT Energy Initiative drafted an 83-page report that looked both at the United States’ natural gas supply and the fuel’s possibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past two years, the MIT group discussed natural gas use with industry leaders, environmental groups, and government officials. They presented their findings and recommendations to legislators and senior administration officials in Washington last week.

“Much has been said about natural gas as a bridge to a low-carbon future, with little underlying analysis to back up this contention. The analysis in this study provides the confirmation—natural gas truly is a bridge to a low-carbon future,” said MITEI Director Ernest J. Moniz in introducing the report. [MIT News]

The report’s main points:

Emissions Compared to Coal

Currently, the United States gets almost half of its power from coal, but the team expects this to change as cap and trade schemes or other regulations make traditional coal plants’ emissions too costly. Regulations and increasing fuel costs, the report forecasts, will lead to a 30 percent increase in electricity prices by 2030 and 45 percent increase by 2050.

Imagining a future where carbon emission rules require industrialized nations to reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2050, the report’s authors say that natural gas will become preferable to coal use and mostly displace it.

“Because national energy use is substantially reduced [given the team's carbon emissions pricing-scheme], the share represented by gas is projected to rise from about 20 percent of the current national total to around 40 percent in 2040,” said the MIT researchers. When used to fire a power plant, gas emits about half of the carbon dioxide emissions as conventional coal plants. [New York Times]

Total Natural Gas Supply

The report estimates the United States’ natural gas deposits at about 2,000 trillion cubic feet (15,000 trillion gallons), including “unconventional sources” such as natural gas produced from shale. Given current domestic consumption rates, the researchers expect that this could last the country for 92 years.

The report also looked at the total amount of natural gas available beyond North America. They estimate this supply at 16,200 trillion cubic feet (121,000 trillion gallons), excluding the US and Canada and unconventional sources. The report’s authors believe the global supply could last for 160 years given current global consumption.

Natural Gas Risks?

The report acknowledges that there are risks to increasing natural gas use–in particular, there are risks associated with the “unconventional” gas reserves in shale deposits. To extract this natural gas requires drilling that can lead to problems such as shallow freshwater aquifer contamination, surface water contamination, and community disturbance, due to drilling and fracturing activities.

As reported by Treehugger, filmmaker Josh Fox has portrayed some of the dangers of hydraulic fracturing–called “fracking”–in his new documentary, Gasland. In one scene from his film, an affected resident sets his tap water on fire (see trailer below).

Some publications have also zeroed in on the risks of unconventional gas reserves; a Vanity Fair article looks at a Pennsylvania town transformed by fracking, while the investigative journalists of ProPublica have published a series of articles on the environmental hazards of gas drilling. But the MIT report maintains that regulations should be sufficient to manage the risks.

Cautious Optimism

The report’s authors also reiterate that natural gas is not a solution, but could help the nation transition to greener energy sources.

“Though gas frequently is touted as a ‘bridge’ to the future, continuing effort is needed to prepare for that future, lest the gift of greater domestic gas resources turn out to be a bridge with no landing point on the far bank,” the report says. [Scientific American via ClimateWire]

As the price of solar and wind power decrease and regulation increases, the report’s authors suspect that even natural gas will be too costly by 2050, forcing the move to a low-carbon future.

“In the very long run, very tight carbon constraints will likely phase out natural gas power generation in favor of zero-carbon or extremely low-carbon energy sources such as renewables, nuclear power or natural gas and coal with carbon capture and storage. For the next several decades, however, natural gas will play a crucial role in enabling very substantial reductions in carbon emissions.” [MIT News]

Related Content:
80beats: Will Methane Gas in Gulf Waters Create a Massive Dead Zone?
80beats: Methane Gas Explosion Blamed for West Virginia Coal Mining Accident
80beats: Did a Natural Gas Operation Cause a Spasm of Texas Earthquakes?
DISCOVER: Nations Stake Their Claims to a Melting Arctic, on the oil and gas rush
DISCOVER: 10 Ways Methane Could Brake Global Warming–or Break the Planet

Image: flickr / AZAdam

It’s a happy ending for Oscar. While lazing in the sun, the British cat lost his two hind paws in a tragic combine harvester accident. But after receiving two bionic paws from Noel Fitzpatrick, a veterinary surgeon based in Surrey, the lucky black cat can now continue crossing many paths.

Oscar really is a bionic cat, as these aren’t just any prosthetic paws. They’re called “intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prosthetics” (ITAP)–which means that the skin from Oscar’s amputated legs can actually grow into the prostheses, like a deer’s skin grows into its antlers. This skintight solution reduces the chance of infection.

As Fitzpatrick told the BBC, which will feature Oscar on a show called The Bionic Vet (see video excerpt):

“The real revolution with Oscar is [that] we have put a piece of metal and a flange into which skin grows into an extremely tight bone.”

Though it’s the first surgery of its kind on a cat, Popular Science notes that these special legs may soon help human amputees as well. Researchers are currently testing ITAP technology on humans, including a victim of the 2005 London bombings.

Related content:
Discoblog: When Humans Get Animal Prosthetics: Amputee Fitted With Mermaid Fin
Discoblog: “Air Guitar Hero” Helps Amputees Test Out New Arms
Discoblog: Step One in Your Surgery: Swallow the Microscopic Hands
Discoblog: Bizarre Disorder Makes People Want to Sever Their Own Limbs

While poking around the interwebz, I happened on this lovely blog post by Liza, The Skeptical Librarian. It’s about helping others, and it’s really quite nice. I agree with her; being able to give someone a helping hand on the odd occasion is a great way to encourage a little more friendliness. Being nice is contagious, too. Maybe not quite as virulent as snark, which is why a lot of us have to work harder at it, but the reward is for real and for sure a nicer world with nicer people.

I’m where I am today because a few people in the right place and at the right moment extended their hand to me. I’ve tried to do that when I can as well.

I do disagree with Liza on at least one point though: she’s a good writer. And her message rings true to me, as I hope it does with you, too.

The universe.  That’s as in the totality of everything that exists.  Everything.  Hair, hide, fur, feathers, and all.  I’m not going to get into any arguments about whether or not this universe is the “only” universe; let’s just say it’s everything we can physically encompass in this dimension.  That which is currently known.

That should do for a working definition.  But what are the physical parameters of “everything”?  Does it begin?  Does it end?  If it ends, what’s beyond the “end”?  What is “it”, exactly?

A very small window on infinity - brough to you by Hubble

You know what?  I wish I knew.  We’ve gained so much knowledge in the last 100,000 years, sometimes we have to pause a moment, because we really know very little about the universe in which we live.  We’re like the residents of a tiny island in a big, big ocean.  Early explorers here thought that if you reached the end of the ocean (or the end of the land, for that matter), you simply fell off.  We’re at about the same place in thinking about the universe.  Some people think there is a form of “boundary” there; some that it’s impossible to reach the “end” because there is no end.  Some think that if you go far enough in one direction, you’ll end up back where you started… just like on Earth.

There is so much we don’t know.  What we do know is usually lumped together in the catchphrase “known universe”.  That’s a polite reminder that any ideas we hold dear today could be blown out of the water tomorrow.  You’ll also hear the phrase “observable universe”, which is (as it sounds) the part of the universe that is possible for us to observe.  The observable universe is limited by what light has had time to reach us.

NASA - WMAP Cosmic Microwave Background; one representation of the universe

One thing we DO know about the universe is that it’s big.  No, I mean it’s really big.  Bigger than that.  At the far end of our observations, we’re seeing things that are about 46.5 billion light years away.  Don’t plotz on me; I know the age of the universe is believed to be about 13.7 billion years old, but we are seeing things more distant due to the continuous expansion of the universe.  Just think about it; 46,500,000,000 light years away.  In any direction.  That’s about 14 billion parsecs.  A parsec is about 19 trillion miles (19,000,000,000,000 miles), or about 31 trillion kilometers (31,000,000,000,000 km).  Since the observable universe is about 46.5 billion light years away in any direction, you can infer that the observable universe is a sphere with a diameter of about 93 billion light years, or about 24 billion parsecs.  Now, you go multiply 24 billion by 19 trillion, and you’ll know about how many miles you’re dealing with.

You know, distances like that don’t really have any meaning to the average person.  There is simply no way we can relate to that.  There’s also no way we can relate to what a very tiny part we are to the universe.  I can try it with the old “grains of sand on a beach” analogy, but you’re going to have to work a little.  How about this:  If one grain of sand from all the beaches and deserts on Earth was a galaxy, and you were sitting on a planet around a star in this galaxy, looking at a grain of sand… there you are!  You’re on that second grain of sand, which is your solar system.

You didn't expect me to pass up this opportunity, did you?

Now, just imagine that the observable universe, just what we can see, is that second grain of sand.  That’s probably closer to the true size of the universe.

Underwater photographer Keith Ellenbogen photographed the Atlantic bluefin tuna both inside and outside of the massive underwater cages used by purse seiner fishing boats on a recent expedition with the watchdog non-profit Oceana. On this expedition, the crew on board the Marviva Med documented the impact of bottom trawling and driftnets on marine ecosystems, and identified marine areas that need protection. Ellenbogen says, “Each year, as they have done for thousands of years, bluefin tuna migrate to the Mediterranean Sea to reproduce. At this moment, I felt a sense of urgency as I observed populations much smaller than expected. I imagined what life must have been like only a few years ago when tuna were abundant, swimming free, and able to reach their true, glorious size.”

The Atlantic bluefin can live 40 years, grow to 15 feet in length and weigh up to 1,400 lbs. They are warm-blooded and able to stabilize their body temperature as they migrate across the Atlantic Ocean, and have been recorded swimming at speeds of up to 55 mph; the word “tuna” comes from the Greek word “to rush.” Bluefin are sought after for the high prices they fetch on the international sushi market: individual Atlantic bluefin tuna have been sold for more than $100,000. Scientists and conservationists fear the Atlantic bluefin tuna is especially vulnerable to extinction due to overfishing, given its low reproduction rate and late maturity, at 3-5 years.

Ellenbogen and a team of scientists observed the tuna being caught by large purse seiner fishing boats from Turkey, France, Spain, and Italy among other countries, with some illegally using spotter planes to locate the fish. The tuna are transferred from fishing nets underwater to cages approximately 300 feet in diameter and 80 feet deep where they are towed slowly (at a speed of about 2 knots) to coastal destinations a couple of days or even weeks away, where they are fattened and then sold to market.

Images courtesy Oceana/Kieth Ellenbogen

Bluefin tuna in a tuna cage, Malta, Marviva Med expedition, June 2008

As a younger stronger particle smasher, the Large Hadron Collider can turn even baby steps into new records. Over this past weekend, the LHC beat another personal best–colliding its most protons yet at 10,000 particle collisions per second (about double its earlier rate). Physicists believe this is a crucial step on the collider’s hunt for new physics.

In November of 2009, the LHC collided its first protons as it started its quest to find the suspected mass-giving particle known as the Higgs Boson. The collider is still running at half of its designed maximum energy, but after this weekend, the number of particles per bunch traveling in the ring is just what physicists had planned. This is essential, says CERN physicist John Ellis:

“Protons are complicated particles, they’ve got quarks, [and other small particles], and colliding them is like colliding two garbage cans and watching carrots come out…. The more collisions we get, the closer we get to supersymmetry, dark matter, the Higgs boson and other types of new physics.” [BBC]

Here are some basics:

Energy: The LHC is already the worlds “most powerful” collider. Power is a measure of energy doled out over time and the LHC can collide its protons with an energy of 7 TeV (3.5 TeV per beam). Second place is the Tevatron collider at Fermi Lab near Chicago. The Tevatron can collide its particles at 2 TeV (1 TeV per beam). LHC researchers hope to get to their designed max of 14 TeV by 2013.

Luminosity: When it comes to getting the goods (i.e. new physics) out of colliding protons, it’s not only how much energy the particles have, but also how often you can get those particles to smack into each other. That’s what physicists call luminosity. This weekend, the LHC achieved 10,000 particle collisions per second. Though the Tevatron has had higher luminosities, LHC physicists are working to beat their personal record from this weekend. Researchers at the LHC will also now work to make the weekend’s number of collisions an easier feat, making higher luminosities a routine matter.

Bunches and Intensity: To increase the number of collisions per second, you need a highly focused beam made of many particles traveling together (particle accelerators use magnets to steer and focus the particles in a beam). The weekend was the first time that physicists accelerated the number of particles per bunch they originally hoped for when they designed the machine: each bunch consisted of as many as 100 billion protons. LHC researchers hope to increase the number of bunches in a beam to 2,808 by 2016.

Such landmark records spur the competition between the two colliders.

“It’s clear that the LHC is the new boy in town, but in two years running we’re going to put Fermilab out of business,” operation group leader Mike Lamont told BBC News. [BBC]

Related content:
80beats: A Sweet Smashup: The LHC Shatters the Collison Energy Record
80beats: In 1 Week, the LHC Will Try to Earn the Title, “Big Bang Machine”
80beats: Rumors of the LHC’s Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
80beats: LHC Beam Zooms Past 1 Trillion Electron Volts, Sets World Record
80beats: Baguettes and Sabateurs from the Future Defeated: LHC Smashes Particles

Image: CERN

What struck down ancient Egypt’s King Tutankhamen at the tender age of 19?

Just this winter, Egyptian researchers seemed to think they had a definitive answer. After years of genetic tests and CT scans, they concluded that royal incest had produced a sickly boy with a bone disorder, and argued that a malaria-bearing parasite finished him off. But now a team of German researchers is arguing that the observations actually point to death from the inherited blood disorder sickle cell disease (SCD).

People with SCD carry a mutation in the gene for haemoglobin which causes their red blood cells to become rigid and sickle-shaped. A single copy of the sickle-cell gene confers increased immunity to malaria, so it tends to be common in areas where the infection is endemic – such as ancient Egypt. People with two copies of the gene suffer severe anaemia and often die young. [New Scientist]

In a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the German scientists argue that the bone damage seen in the investigation of Tut’s mummy was likely the result of sickle cell disease, as the sickle-shaped cells can block blood flow through capillaries and therefore keep oxygen from reaching bone tissue. They also argue that malaria is more likely to kill young children in areas where the disease is endemic; those who survive to their teenaged years typically have a degree of immunity.

The German researchers, who hail from the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, are eager to follow up on their theory.

According to the German researchers, the Egyptian researchers could have tested Tut’s DNA for the genetic blood disorder. “To confirm sickle cell disease or the genetic trait would take just 60 minutes and is easy – we wonder why the authors haven’t done that so far,” said [study coauthor] Christian Meyer. [LiveScience]

The Egyptian researchers say they’re interested in the new theory, and will investigate it in due time. For now, the mystery that began with the boy king’s death around 1324 B.C. will linger on.

Related Content:
80beats: What Killed King Tut? Incest and Malaria, Study Says
80beats: Egypt Finds Tombs of Pyramid Builders, And More Evidence They Were Free Men
80beats: X-Rayed Mummies Reveal That Ancient Egyptians Had Heart Disease
80beats: Scientist Smackdowns (our growing compendium of juicy scientific arguments)
DISCOVER: 5 Questions for the Mummy Doctor

Image: Wikimedia

Players complaining about the new ball: It’s one of the traditions that returned like clockwork with this World Cup, along with egregious diving, English misery, and American fans perking up when the team performs and then swearing off soccer for another four years when USA crashes out.

But while equipment discontent typically fades as the tournament enters its final stages, anger toward World Cup 2010’s Jabulani ball won’t subside. So Caltech scientists decided to find out for themselves: They took the ball into their lab’s wind tunnel to see if it’s really so bad.

If you’ve spent any time kicking around a soccer ball, you’ll remember that it isn’t a perfect sphere, but rather is made of geometric panels with grooves in between. But while a traditional ball contains 32 panels, the Jabulani contains only 8, which made the team led by Beverly McKeon suspect there could be something to the complaints about its erratic behavior.

Consider the history of the golf ball, which was smooth back in the mid-1800s. “The Scots learned the hard way,” McKeon said. The addition of dimples made for a rougher surface but a narrower wake and less drag, which contributed to straighter, longer trajectories. To some degree, the Jabulani represents a shift in the opposite direction, even with tiny ridges covering its skin. Caltech’s study suggests that it starts with a smooth — or laminar — airflow, shifts to something more turbulent, then shifts back again [Los Angeles Times].

The scientists say those shifts they saw in the lab (see video here) could be responsible for the odd reactions we’ve seen from goalkeepers in this World Cup, like English ‘keeper Robert Green’s notorious misplay against the United States.

“So as the goalkeeper sees the ball coming, it suddenly seems to change its trajectory,” McKeon said. “It’s like putting the brakes on, but putting them on unevenly” [Los Angeles Times].

Altitude also could be adding to the Jabulani’s misbehavior. That’s the defense coming from Erik Van Leeuwen of Adidas, the ball’s manufacturer.

Six of the 10 World Cup stadiums are above 1,200 meters (3,937 feet), where the air is thinner. That may be affecting the Jabulani’s movement, Van Leeuwen said. A ball kicked at altitude travels 5 percent faster than one kicked in Durban, which is at sea level, he said [Bloomberg].

FIFA, soccer’s governing body, says it’s aware of the concerns about Jabulani. But for at least the rest of this tournament, players are going to have to get used to it—or blame the ball if they lose.

Related Content:
Discoblog: Vuvuzela vs. Sound Engineer: Has the World Cup Stadium Horn Met Its Match?
80beats: Just Kick the Ball: The Scientific Secret To World Cup Penalty Shots
80beats: Olympic Tech: Bobsled Aerodynamics, Curling Science, And More
DISCOVER: The Newest Olympic Event: Scientific Discovery

Image: Adidas